There was one of those meme rants posted on Facebook a couple of weeks ago complaining about “alot” not being a word. A couple of moments of research later I posted an example couple of sentences illustrating that it is not uncommon for words to be adjacent words to become merged in English, joined by running together or by hyphen. “alot” might not be fully recognized yet, but it is certainly not a violation of “the rules of English”.
There was one of those meme rants posted on Facebook a couple of weeks ago complaining about “alot” not being a word. A couple of moments of research later I posted an example couple of sentences illustrating that it is not uncommon for words to be adjacent words to become merged in English, joined by running together or by hyphen. “alot” might not be fully recognized yet, but it is certainly not a violation of “the rules of English”.
Is there no room what so ever for “alot”, for ever and ever, or to morrow will it in stead be some what acceptable none the less, not with standing your objections?
In other words, English evolves constantly, and merging of words happens continually. English has no prescriptive authority similar to Académie française; the closest it has is Oxford Dictionaries, which has always been descriptive rather than prescriptive.
“alot” does not break grammatical rules, so the question becomes not whether it is right or wrong but rather whether it has already been common enough to be considered “acceptable” for the purpose for which it is to be employed.
Should we get into the “forensics” of how to “autotune” a “birdhouse”, or should the “young at heart” “storyboard” about being “photobombed” while “retweeting” what we were “sexting” about a “stagette”? All those quoted terms were added to the Oxford Dictionaries about 7 months ago (June 2015), so clearly terms become “acceptable” often in English. Were all the Canadians who used “stagette” over the last century “wrong” until it was blessed by Oxford Dictionaries?
Is there no room what so ever for “alot”, for ever and ever, or to morrow will it in stead be some what acceptable none the less, not with standing your objections?
In other words, English evolves constantly, and merging of words happens continually. English has no prescriptive authority similar to Académie française; the closest it has is Oxford Dictionaries, which has always been descriptive rather than prescriptive.
“alot” does not break grammatical rules, so the question becomes not whether it is right or wrong but rather whether it has already been common enough to be considered “acceptable” for the purpose for which it is to be employed.
Should we get into the “forensics” of how to “autotune” a “birdhouse”, or should the “young at heart” “storyboard” about being “photobombed” while “retweeting” what we were “sexting” about a “stagette”? All those quoted terms were added to the Oxford Dictionaries about 7 months ago (June 2015), so clearly terms become “acceptable” often in English. Were all the Canadians who used “stagette” over the last century “wrong” until it was blessed by Oxford Dictionaries?
Or as it would be done in Swedish:
twenty fourhour shifts
twentyfour hour shifts
twentyfourhour shifts
Or as it would be done in Swedish:
twenty fourhour shifts
twentyfour hour shifts
twentyfourhour shifts
There was one of those meme rants posted on Facebook a couple of weeks ago complaining about “alot” not being a word. A couple of moments of research later I posted an example couple of sentences illustrating that it is not uncommon for words to be adjacent words to become merged in English, joined by running together or by hyphen. “alot” might not be fully recognized yet, but it is certainly not a violation of “the rules of English”.
There was one of those meme rants posted on Facebook a couple of weeks ago complaining about “alot” not being a word. A couple of moments of research later I posted an example couple of sentences illustrating that it is not uncommon for words to be adjacent words to become merged in English, joined by running together or by hyphen. “alot” might not be fully recognized yet, but it is certainly not a violation of “the rules of English”.
Walter Roberson
You’re wrong. Alot is no more a word than alittle or somuch is. That “a” in there is NOT a part of the word “lot”.
Walter Roberson
You’re wrong. Alot is no more a word than alittle or somuch is. That “a” in there is NOT a part of the word “lot”.
Alma Alexander
Is there no room what so ever for “alot”, for ever and ever, or to morrow will it in stead be some what acceptable none the less, not with standing your objections?
In other words, English evolves constantly, and merging of words happens continually. English has no prescriptive authority similar to Académie française; the closest it has is Oxford Dictionaries, which has always been descriptive rather than prescriptive.
“alot” does not break grammatical rules, so the question becomes not whether it is right or wrong but rather whether it has already been common enough to be considered “acceptable” for the purpose for which it is to be employed.
Should we get into the “forensics” of how to “autotune” a “birdhouse”, or should the “young at heart” “storyboard” about being “photobombed” while “retweeting” what we were “sexting” about a “stagette”? All those quoted terms were added to the Oxford Dictionaries about 7 months ago (June 2015), so clearly terms become “acceptable” often in English. Were all the Canadians who used “stagette” over the last century “wrong” until it was blessed by Oxford Dictionaries?
Alma Alexander
Is there no room what so ever for “alot”, for ever and ever, or to morrow will it in stead be some what acceptable none the less, not with standing your objections?
In other words, English evolves constantly, and merging of words happens continually. English has no prescriptive authority similar to Académie française; the closest it has is Oxford Dictionaries, which has always been descriptive rather than prescriptive.
“alot” does not break grammatical rules, so the question becomes not whether it is right or wrong but rather whether it has already been common enough to be considered “acceptable” for the purpose for which it is to be employed.
Should we get into the “forensics” of how to “autotune” a “birdhouse”, or should the “young at heart” “storyboard” about being “photobombed” while “retweeting” what we were “sexting” about a “stagette”? All those quoted terms were added to the Oxford Dictionaries about 7 months ago (June 2015), so clearly terms become “acceptable” often in English. Were all the Canadians who used “stagette” over the last century “wrong” until it was blessed by Oxford Dictionaries?